Watch out SONY LG & Samsung here comes SHARP Aquos Quattron!

[royalanalog]

Murali & Adder ..... you both have written very well - have to say that !

Adder ....

Very well said statistics, but there are some things I'd like to point out...

SHARP: When and where did I mention that Indian SHARP has good service as compared to SONY ? Yes, we don't find SHARP products in showrooms, but that's only in India and not abroad ! The reason being SHARP India not spending too much on ads or marketing which is their company policy. Visit the link I posted above and you'll know SHARP LCD is above SONY in LCD sales as of Q4 2K9 just by 0.3 !

Philips : Philips gifted some broadcasting equipments as a gift to Indian Government in return to a permission granted for an exhibition way back in '40s or '50s. And guess what those equipments gave birth to : none other than our Doordarshan !

Philips is not extinct. Their products sell but not as hot cakes. They may be extinct in LCD TV market (again only in India), but in the DVD Player market, their products are excellent ( statement based on online reviews and not my own imagination !).
Again, I never talked about SONY high end LCD TVs or SHARP XS1 or OLED TVs- why do you bring it into discussion?

SONY: You need not educate me about the 'quality' of SONY products - I own a Trinitron TV. It delivers the stunning picture way beyond words to describe. Truly like no other. God knows what components they use inside their products - their quality and life-span is magical !

[/I] But is Trinitron the only good technology in CRT? NO ! Philips' Pixel Plus DSP algorithm is said to be the biggest thing in CRT yet - it won awards in Europe just as Trinitron won Emmy awards. But hardly anyone knows about Pixel Plus in India. SONY's aim is not just develop technology but to win more market share using its unique and newer products. They are damn shrewd. SONY's CEO said once ....

"I don't serve markets. I create them !"

Every SONY product ( those that fail to perform ) costs high - more than other Japanese brands. The game of SONY is: Research and create a product/technology (that will sell in future market), patent it, release it in market and enjoy the harvest. Not a bad idea.

We just need to be a little broad minded ! My whole objective was to mention that Indian market revolves around LG Sony and Samsung (as if they are the Father Son and Holy Spirit hyeah and that it must widen its vision !

Pioneer Plasma is impeccable scoring highest review ratings ever (in Asia, Europe and US). It's the best TV ever made, say owners and reviewers. No doubt only high class people cud afford it. But look at Panasonic - their Plasmas are rocking. Yet inexpensive compared to Pioneer Plasmas or SHARP/SONY LCDs.

Last but not least, I don't own a 'big' TV at home. Nor do i want one. I own just 2 TVs -
1) Panasonic Tau with Quintrix tube &
2) SONY KV-AZ213M83 - a mind blowing product.

I prefer products that have quality and are economical. I dont mind sacrificing a little features and going for SHARP/TOSHIBA that gives near equal quality rather than SONY that is way too expensive for an average man (in these times of outsourcing and non-'MADE IN JAPAN' era when companies have more profit margins ! ).

Try to understand one thing: Every brand has it's own vision and corresponding kind of products. We just have to choose from them. There is nothing like best and worst. We customers are the deciding the fate of the company/brand !


Murali ....

Since you own a SHARP LCD TV and other SHARP products that satisfied you with performance and long life, your statement are genuine, I feel.

You know? SHARP released a 108" TV (maybe not in the middle east). Whoa ! Lil smaller than double the size you're talking about ! For details, visit:

Sharp unveils 108-inch LCD television - CNET News

Your Trinitron may have failed in 8 yrs but generally Trinitrons live for 25 years ! If my Uncle's SHARP Optonica (made in India by Kalyani SHARP India Ltd) can last for 15 years without a single fault (got repaired only bcos a local mechanic attached a local tuner PCB), why won't a SONY last for 20 years ? Certainly it does ! All my friends are running for LCD TVs. But i invested in a Trinitron and i cherish its unequal quality everyday. Man it's impeccable.

Never knew Nakamichi made Plasmas ! See, again there's lack of knowledge. Indian market is a well and other markets are oceans

Yes SONY Center guys are arrogant but again, they are run by other outlets like Adishwars that act as franchisees, so can't blame it on SONY Corporation. But never knew they'd threaten you based on contacts in customs. This is India - here even a corpse would be back to life if bribed hehe. But Akio Morito is the backbone behind the company's success I've heard he traveled across the globe to assess the choice, mindset and taste of people before starting SONY (or when it was in baby stage).

Philips, the same guys who released Ambilight have released 21:9 original cinemascope format screen. But somehow their products are not as sharp as SONY or Panasonic I feel and fail to capture the mass market, though they are inexpensive ! Poor marketing is one factor for that I feel. How's Philips doing in the Mid-East ?

I personally feel and saw that, Plasmas give accurate blend of colors, sharpness and brightness (and best motion due to .001 ms resp time ). LCDs give a picture that is richer that original, said a dealer. I feel that's true.

Keep sharing...

Royal Analog.

 

[adder]

@royalanlog
i responded to murali .

once again i am hope this a constructive discussion.

Now philips was going to become extinct in terms of their consumer division,there is a reason behind the earlier news that philips india will start concentrating on medical and commercial equipments and is moving away from consumer electronics.
Videocon have now stepped in to market and sell philips television in india.


BTW i too bought the AZ21M83 after i heard the news that sony has stopped producing CRTs.While this tv is great compared to the competition ,i would be dishonest if i say that i prefer this to the lcds sold after 06 .
But i do like the sony crt produced prior to WEGA 2.0.The WEGA 2.0 or sparkling WEGA is meant for SE asian countries,india and china.
The prior models were made in Japan and i feel they had better image processing.

About plasma having accurate brightness is wrong,they infact have variations in brightness due to ABL.

 

[royalanalog]

What??? Philips is to be marketed by Videocon? This is like handing over an exotic treasure to a local beggar ! God save Philips. But why's Philips India not doing as their international counterparts? Philips LCD is #5 best-seller in global market after all. Videocon is spoilin other brands like Akai, Toshiba, Sansui etc. Hope Philips and Videocon do not merge in India.

Comparing CRTs with LCDs is wrong. CRTs are gaseous-tubes whereas LCDs are liquid technology based displays. Though it's said that CRTs are more robust, I personally feel these two technologies cannot be compared.

Coming to Sony WEGA, Sparkling Wega 2.0 is a rocking technology. I read on SONY catalogue that SONY researched and increased the diameter of its pic tube's electron Gun enabling more electrons to flow and hit the screen's phosphor coating. The result: brighter, vivid and sparkling images compared to competitor's shadow mask pic-tube's dull and dark images. While this being the upside, the downside is that some bright images look unnaturally bright(er) compared to original. I also observe that sky blue tends to appear greyish (surprisingly I feel Shadow mask TV reproduces this color more accurately).

Regarding Plasmas' brightness...

Once I'd been to Croma, Bangalore where i saw a Blu-Ray Disc about BRAVIA played from a Philips Blu-Ray Player - its o/p was routed to following five TVs:

1) 42" SONY Bravia,
2) 42" Philips LCD,
3) 42" LG LCD TV,
4) 42" Samsung LCD and
5) 42" Panasonic Plasma (i think G10 model).

All scenes were almost equally good on all 5 TVs but there was a scene where Plasma beat LCDs hands down : during a scene, a beach was shown - its sand being ivory white in color in broad daylight. LCD TVs showed the sand so bright that my eyes felt a glare - I felt as if I am looking not at a scene on an LCD TV but at a source of light inside the TV( if you look at sand in broad daylight with your naked eyes, do your eyes glare? No. But on LCD images it does! So duplicate ...or should I say artificial? ). Philips showed the sand very bright with poor resolution. SONY was better in terms of resolution than Philips but brightness was too high as well (It was so irritating as all LCD manufacturers beef up the brightness to look catchy in a bright store environment ) But the Panasonic Plasma showed the sand with accurate contrast, brightness and color - I realized it was sand after watching it on Panny! And guess what...all TVs were on Standard picture setting ! Theoretically I think LCDs provide better images than Plasmas due to ABL or any jargon for that matter ! But practically I feel plasmas are better (for 40" +). And I think Plasma is better in many other ways as well.

Keep Sharing ...

 

[adder]

Comparing CRTs with LCDs is wrong. CRTs are gaseous-tubes whereas LCDs are liquid technology based displays. Though it's said that CRTs are more robust, I personally feel these two technologies cannot be compared.

Coming to Sony WEGA, Sparkling Wega 2.0 is a rocking technology. I read on SONY catalogue that SONY researched and increased the diameter of its pic tube's electron Gun enabling more electrons to flow and hit the screen's phosphor coating. The result: brighter, vivid and sparkling images compared to competitor's shadow mask pic-tube's dull and dark images. While this being the upside, the downside is that some bright images look unnaturally bright(er) compared to original. I also observe that sky blue tends to appear greyish (surprisingly I feel Shadow mask TV reproduces this color more accurately).

Regarding Plasmas' brightness...

Once I'd been to Croma, Bangalore where i saw a Blu-Ray Disc about BRAVIA played from a Philips Blu-Ray Player - its o/p was routed to following five TVs:

1) 42" SONY Bravia,
2) 42" Philips LCD,
3) 42" LG LCD TV,
4) 42" Samsung LCD and
5) 42" Panasonic Plasma (i think G10 model).

All scenes were almost equally good on all 5 TVs but there was a scene where Plasma beat LCDs hands down : during a scene, a beach was shown - its sand being ivory white in color in broad daylight. LCD TVs showed the sand so bright that my eyes felt a glare - I felt as if I am looking not at a scene on an LCD TV but at a source of light inside the TV( if you look at sand in broad daylight with your naked eyes, do your eyes glare? No. But on LCD images it does! So duplicate ...or should I say artificial? ). Philips showed the sand very bright with poor resolution. SONY was better in terms of resolution than Philips but brightness was too high as well (It was so irritating as all LCD manufacturers beef up the brightness to look catchy in a bright store environment ) But the Panasonic Plasma showed the sand with accurate contrast, brightness and color - I realized it was sand after watching it on Panny! And guess what...all TVs were on Standard picture setting ! Theoretically I think LCDs provide better images than Plasmas due to ABL or any jargon for that matter ! But practically I feel plasmas are better (for 40" +). And I think Plasma is better in many other ways as well.

Keep Sharing ...

Well i am just merly saying that i prefer lcds as a tv,then crts.

Having seen various sony crts in my life,i can safely say that most of what you read in sony brochure is put by people in marketing which has nothing to do with what the really the feature does.
When i was in a look out for a 29" crt for my cousin sparkling WEGA 2.0 DZ serues i.e 100hz or DRC model looked inferior to the WEGA DR and DB series also equipped with 100hz,the amount of fine detail the older wegas could churn out is impressive,the newer DZ WEGA 2.0 looked blurry.
Even the picture tube was of a slightly darker shade in the older models they were off course made in Japan.

When checking tvs in showroom especially lcd they usually are set to vivid or what ever is the brightest factory settings in torch mode.Which usually show inaccurate colors,gamma etc.
Again comparing a HD ready plasma to a FHD lcd isn't fair. One need to compared a FHD plasma to a FHD lcd even then not all lcd are the same.

 

[murali]

Hopefully my last input in this thread.
A few years back, Time magazine published the following (an assessment by ordinary person like you and me buying TV and not video specialists counting pixels and movements):

If you are among the many people wondering when it might be time to buy a flat-panel LCD TV, I've got some good news. This year, LCDs are ready for prime time.
I tested this hypothesis by borrowing high-definition 32-inchers from two industry leaders, Sharp and Sony. A price check alone tells you just how competitive LCD sales will be this year. At CES 2006, Sharp introduced the Aquos LC-32D40U (not to be confused with 32D4U) with a list price of $1,800, but it's already appearing online in the $1,600 range. Sony's 32-inch S-Series Bravia the KDL-32S2000 lists for $1,900, but is also appearing online for around $1,600. I'll state now that my one-on-one review didn't cover the many other brands with reputable LCD sets. However, my initial testing made me pretty lazy: I didn't want to look any further than these two sweet HDTVs.

For true comparison, I connected both TVs to a Sony DVD player, using a special (and expensive) box. The DVD player upconverts the video signal from DVDs to high def. That doesn't mean that the videos themselves are HD, but they do look pretty good. I was able to view movies such as Batman Begins, House of Flying Daggers and The Incredibles on both screens at once. Later, I connected the TVs to my cable box to watch true high-definition signal the ESPN HD broadcast of last Monday night's Phillies-Braves game. This might not be termed a scientific review, but rest assured I viewed with the scrutiny of someone who really likes watching TV, and someone who has been disappointed by many TV pictures.

In previous years, LCDs had a problem with something called response time; that is, the time it takes for the pixels on the screen to change. When the response time is greater than 10 milliseconds, your eyes can perceive the lag, and things can look streaky. Sometimes objects get an unintended halo. The Bravia has an 8ms response, and the Aquos has it beat with a 6ms response time. But I can tell you that, for both companies, the problem appears to have been eliminated. I did not notice any response time issues.

The other commonly discussed LCD shortcoming is its contrast, or black level. LCD TVs have a backlight, an actual bulb shining behind it, not the case with plasmas and regular old tube TVs. Because of this always-on bulb, parts of a scene that were supposed to be pitch black used to look more like a charcoal gray, or even a deep blue. Bad news for film-noir lovers, for sure. Both TVs had tolerably good black levels, but side by side, the Sharp was better, exhibiting visibly higher contrast than the Sony.

In Sony's defense, the 32S2000 has some great features. The display, including the stand, weights 5.5 lbs. less than Sharp's. Also, it has video input jacks that are accessible from behind, making it easier to mess with your inputs when you're using the stand. In truth, though I had to pick a winner, there's no loser here: you would be proud to own either of these sets. The real winner is LCD technology. It's the future, at least for now.

I also read somewhere that from last year, Sony have been sourcing LCD panels from Sharp.

In the mass market, the differences from one brand to another are the most blurred and you never know what is what.

cheers
murali

Read more: Gadget Showdown: Sharp Aquos vs. Sony Bravia - TIME

 

[royalanalog]

The Panny 42" Plasma I spoke about was Full HD, not HD ready. I too just said that I prefer Plasmas then CRTs then LCDs. Not that LCDs are bad in performance.
As far as 29" CRT is concerned, SONY WEGA sucks. The resolution is too poor with visible scanning lines. Comparing with it, Sansui and SHARP 29" CRTs were okay but Panasonic 29" TAU was fabulous.
Shrewd SONY does advertising and marketing very well on its manuals as I said already but I think the increase of its e-gun's width is true - my WEGA gives ultimate brightness (without the certain glare in other shadow mask TVs when brightness is increased!) when JPEG and DivX files are played. SONY claims that this feature is present only in Sparkling WEGA 2.0 and not in the AZ21M83 that uses Sparkling WEGA(v 1.0). The images are so lifelike that I can see new details on it that get darkened in other SONYs and mask tube TVs! Also, the Velocity Modulation is a fantastic feature as it tightens the e-beam yielding the sharpest image on a CRT - too hard to be believed ! Yet, I feel these WEGAs fall short of yesteryear SONY Trinitron vertically flat Kirara Basso TVs that were in d market in 1996-2000 period just prior to WEGA. I feel the reason could be the use of more discrete components used in older Trinitrons. And yes, Invar Shadow mask TVs produce better blacks than Trinitron tubes. When I watch STAR WARS DVDs on my SONY, it does give sharp and colorfully dazzling images. But it lacks the 3-D depth that can be seen on the inferior shadow mask TVs.

And DRC was launched by SONY cos they got afraid of the Pixel Plus Motion Interpolation technology launched by Philips in CRT TVs' signals upscaling i.e. upscaling incoming 480i signals to 720p and 1080i signals (as usually, SONY can't see another brand launch a 'more advanced' technology compared to them - SONY wants to be the quality leader). Maybe that's why DRC images aren't original and impressive. My SONY CRT is "Made in Thailand". But I don't think SONY has Trinitron plant outside Japan, do they?

 

[murali]

Sorry, a final comment after seeing the direction of this thread.

Just out of curiosity, presuming all of us here own laptops or PCs, I wonder how we go about selecting them, whether HP-Compaq, Dell, Sony, Lenovo, Acer etc etc. Do we look for subtle differences here, or system configuration, hardware, screen size, price, support etc etc. Am I wrong if I believe that all of them do the same job which we intend without bothering about screen flicker, speed, response etc???

Happy listening and viewing.
murali

 

[adder]

The Panny 42" Plasma I spoke about was Full HD, not HD ready. I too just said that I prefer Plasmas then CRTs then LCDs. Not that LCDs are bad in performance.
As far as 29" CRT is concerned, SONY WEGA sucks. The resolution is too poor with visible scanning lines. Comparing with it, Sansui and SHARP 29" CRTs were okay but Panasonic 29" TAU was fabulous.
Shrewd SONY does advertising and marketing very well on its manuals as I said already but I think the increase of its e-gun's width is true - my WEGA gives ultimate brightness (without the certain glare in other shadow mask TVs when brightness is increased!) when JPEG and DivX files are played. SONY claims that this feature is present only in Sparkling WEGA 2.0 and not in the AZ21M83 that uses Sparkling WEGA(v 1.0). The images are so lifelike that I can see new details on it that get darkened in other SONYs and mask tube TVs! Also, the Velocity Modulation is a fantastic feature as it tightens the e-beam yielding the sharpest image on a CRT - too hard to be believed ! Yet, I feel these WEGAs fall short of yesteryear SONY Trinitron vertically flat Kirara Basso TVs that were in d market in 1996-2000 period just prior to WEGA. I feel the reason could be the use of more discrete components used in older Trinitrons. And yes, Invar Shadow mask TVs produce better blacks than Trinitron tubes. When I watch STAR WARS DVDs on my SONY, it does give sharp and colorfully dazzling images. But it lacks the 3-D depth that can be seen on the inferior shadow mask TVs.

And DRC was launched by SONY cos they got afraid of the Pixel Plus Motion Interpolation technology launched by Philips in CRT TVs' signals upscaling i.e. upscaling incoming 480i signals to 720p and 1080i signals (as usually, SONY can't see another brand launch a 'more advanced' technology compared to them - SONY wants to be the quality leader). Maybe that's why DRC images aren't original and impressive. My SONY CRT is "Made in Thailand". But I don't think SONY has Trinitron plant outside Japan, do they?

Well they have had many trinitron plant outside japan.
The labor in japan is expensive,even the LCDs are no longer made or assembled in japan.

Sorry, a final comment after seeing the direction of this thread.

Just out of curiosity, presuming all of us here own laptops or PCs, I wonder how we go about selecting them, whether HP-Compaq, Dell, Sony, Lenovo, Acer etc etc. Do we look for subtle differences here, or system configuration, hardware, screen size, price, support etc etc. Am I wrong if I believe that all of them do the same job which we intend without bothering about screen flicker, speed, response etc???

Happy listening and viewing.
murali

Well if you really want to know.for me laptops is all about performance and build,i only have owned only thinkpad,latitude, etc that have really good build quality.
Yes the laptops i have don't have a TN panel like lower end consumer models like studio,inspiron etc.

 

[royalanalog]

Well they have had many trinitron plant outside japan.
The labor in japan is expensive,even the LCDs are no longer made or assembled in japan.




Well if you really want to know.for me laptops is all about performance and build,i only have owned only thinkpad,latitude, etc that have really good build quality.
Yes the laptops i have don't have a TN panel like lower end consumer models like studio,inspiron etc.

Well, I am not aware of Trinitron plants elsewhere but I'm sure SHARP has its Kameyama LCD panel plant only in Japan. It's a vertically integrated plant which means that everything inside a SHARP TV starting from panels, circuitry and assembling is done in the plant. That's why SHARP AQUOS is a very expensive TV - a 65" TV sells for more than 5 lakhs INR in India ( who the heck would buy it in India ?? ) !

 

[royalanalog]

Hopefully my last input in this thread.
A few years back, Time magazine published the following (an assessment by ordinary person like you and me buying TV and not video specialists counting pixels and movements):

If you are among the many people wondering when it might be time to buy a flat-panel LCD TV, I've got some good news. This year, LCDs are ready for prime time.
I tested this hypothesis by borrowing high-definition 32-inchers from two industry leaders, Sharp and Sony. A price check alone tells you just how competitive LCD sales will be this year. At CES 2006, Sharp introduced the Aquos LC-32D40U (not to be confused with 32D4U) with a list price of $1,800, but it's already appearing online in the $1,600 range. Sony's 32-inch S-Series Bravia the KDL-32S2000 lists for $1,900, but is also appearing online for around $1,600. I'll state now that my one-on-one review didn't cover the many other brands with reputable LCD sets. However, my initial testing made me pretty lazy: I didn't want to look any further than these two sweet HDTVs.

For true comparison, I connected both TVs to a Sony DVD player, using a special (and expensive) box. The DVD player upconverts the video signal from DVDs to high def. That doesn't mean that the videos themselves are HD, but they do look pretty good. I was able to view movies such as Batman Begins, House of Flying Daggers and The Incredibles on both screens at once. Later, I connected the TVs to my cable box to watch true high-definition signal the ESPN HD broadcast of last Monday night's Phillies-Braves game. This might not be termed a scientific review, but rest assured I viewed with the scrutiny of someone who really likes watching TV, and someone who has been disappointed by many TV pictures.

In previous years, LCDs had a problem with something called response time; that is, the time it takes for the pixels on the screen to change. When the response time is greater than 10 milliseconds, your eyes can perceive the lag, and things can look streaky. Sometimes objects get an unintended halo. The Bravia has an 8ms response, and the Aquos has it beat with a 6ms response time. But I can tell you that, for both companies, the problem appears to have been eliminated. I did not notice any response time issues.

The other commonly discussed LCD shortcoming is its contrast, or black level. LCD TVs have a backlight, an actual bulb shining behind it, not the case with plasmas and regular old tube TVs. Because of this always-on bulb, parts of a scene that were supposed to be pitch black used to look more like a charcoal gray, or even a deep blue. Bad news for film-noir lovers, for sure. Both TVs had tolerably good black levels, but side by side, the Sharp was better, exhibiting visibly higher contrast than the Sony.

In Sony's defense, the 32S2000 has some great features. The display, including the stand, weights 5.5 lbs. less than Sharp's. Also, it has video input jacks that are accessible from behind, making it easier to mess with your inputs when you're using the stand. In truth, though I had to pick a winner, there's no loser here: you would be proud to own either of these sets. The real winner is LCD technology. It's the future, at least for now.

I also read somewhere that from last year, Sony have been sourcing LCD panels from Sharp.

In the mass market, the differences from one brand to another are the most blurred and you never know what is what.

cheers
murali

Read more: Gadget Showdown: Sharp Aquos vs. Sony Bravia - TIME

Murali, the article you've pasted here dates back to 2006. Unlike in 2006, latest AQUOSes' quality has been matched/surpassed by Samsung, SONY, LG and others. Yet, SHARP AQUOS is a great LCD TV because it makes everything starting from LCD panels to circuitry to assembling within its Kameyama plant in Japan. And SHARP TVs have amazing life span, atleast in India.

Yes, SHARP's panels will be used in SONY Bravia LCDs - this news has been officially confirmed by SONY Corporation itself on their own website.

Sony Global - News Release - Sharp and Sony sign Memorandum of Intent to create Joint Venture for Large Sized LCD

So.....happy viewing on your AQUOS TV !

 

[royalanalog]

SHARP releases 3D Quattron TV !!!!!

Sharp Develops the World's First Four-Primary-Color 3D LCD | SHARP

Contrary to the above statement that SHARP is way behind others in 3D technology, SHARP Corporation, Japan has released a 3D Television that uses the four primary color based Quattron panel.

Welcome, 3D Quattron !

 

[psychotropic]

hey murali, this was definitely true in 2006. But this is 2010 now, and the game has changed. Sharp's Aquos is not top of the line any more. Instead of Time magazine you can check any of the respected display reviewing websites for this. (again I am not a Sony user, I use a Samsung plasma)

Again, with Plasma around and better and better plasma models coming out, I don't think it's time yet for us to have to satisfy ourselves with LCD displays

Hopefully my last input in this thread.
A few years back, Time magazine published the following (an assessment by ordinary person like you and me buying TV and not video specialists counting pixels and movements):

If you are among the many people wondering when it might be time to buy a flat-panel LCD TV, I've got some good news. This year, LCDs are ready for prime time.
I tested this hypothesis by borrowing high-definition 32-inchers from two industry leaders, Sharp and Sony. A price check alone tells you just how competitive LCD sales will be this year. At CES 2006, Sharp introduced the Aquos LC-32D40U (not to be confused with 32D4U) with a list price of $1,800, but it's already appearing online in the $1,600 range. Sony's 32-inch S-Series Bravia the KDL-32S2000 lists for $1,900, but is also appearing online for around $1,600. I'll state now that my one-on-one review didn't cover the many other brands with reputable LCD sets. However, my initial testing made me pretty lazy: I didn't want to look any further than these two sweet HDTVs.

For true comparison, I connected both TVs to a Sony DVD player, using a special (and expensive) box. The DVD player upconverts the video signal from DVDs to high def. That doesn't mean that the videos themselves are HD, but they do look pretty good. I was able to view movies such as Batman Begins, House of Flying Daggers and The Incredibles on both screens at once. Later, I connected the TVs to my cable box to watch true high-definition signal the ESPN HD broadcast of last Monday night's Phillies-Braves game. This might not be termed a scientific review, but rest assured I viewed with the scrutiny of someone who really likes watching TV, and someone who has been disappointed by many TV pictures.

In previous years, LCDs had a problem with something called response time; that is, the time it takes for the pixels on the screen to change. When the response time is greater than 10 milliseconds, your eyes can perceive the lag, and things can look streaky. Sometimes objects get an unintended halo. The Bravia has an 8ms response, and the Aquos has it beat with a 6ms response time. But I can tell you that, for both companies, the problem appears to have been eliminated. I did not notice any response time issues.

The other commonly discussed LCD shortcoming is its contrast, or black level. LCD TVs have a backlight, an actual bulb shining behind it, not the case with plasmas and regular old tube TVs. Because of this always-on bulb, parts of a scene that were supposed to be pitch black used to look more like a charcoal gray, or even a deep blue. Bad news for film-noir lovers, for sure. Both TVs had tolerably good black levels, but side by side, the Sharp was better, exhibiting visibly higher contrast than the Sony.

In Sony's defense, the 32S2000 has some great features. The display, including the stand, weights 5.5 lbs. less than Sharp's. Also, it has video input jacks that are accessible from behind, making it easier to mess with your inputs when you're using the stand. In truth, though I had to pick a winner, there's no loser here: you would be proud to own either of these sets. The real winner is LCD technology. It's the future, at least for now.

I also read somewhere that from last year, Sony have been sourcing LCD panels from Sharp.

In the mass market, the differences from one brand to another are the most blurred and you never know what is what.

cheers
murali

Read more: Gadget Showdown: Sharp Aquos vs. Sony Bravia - TIME

 

[murali]

Thanks. I am always in the Plasma camp for serious DVD watching, and recently added a coveted 50" Pioneer Kuro to my stable. I use the LCD here just for normal TV watching, mostly sports, whenever I get bored. A cheap Sharp Aquos does it well.

murali

 

[adder]

SHARP releases 3D Quattron TV !!!!!

Sharp Develops the World's First Four-Primary-Color 3D LCD | SHARP

Contrary to the above statement that SHARP is way behind others in 3D technology, SHARP Corporation, Japan has released a 3D Television that uses the four primary color based Quattron panel.

Welcome, 3D Quattron !

Well as i have said before sharp is strong force behind the 3d consortium.
The sony high end HX and LX range will mostly use the 3 sub pixel based sharp UV2A panels ,so it no suprise that sharp as launched this.

 

[royalanalog]

Thanks. I am always in the Plasma camp for serious DVD watching, and recently added a coveted 50" Pioneer Kuro to my stable. I use the LCD here just for normal TV watching, mostly sports, whenever I get bored. A cheap Sharp Aquos does it well.

murali

Plasma is definitely better - that's what I already mentioned. Even standard def cable channels (despite getting 'stretched' by 42 inchers) have amazing depth on Plasmas. DVD/Blu Ray Movies especially SFX ones can be mind blowing and original only on Plasmas.
TVs deliver colors that are too vibrant compared to the real image compared to plasmas' original color saturation. But after all, the world goes by what looks attractive to the eyes !

Nandree Vanakkam.

Keep sharing.

 

[royalanalog]

According to the links,

Sony and Toshiba Outsource LCD-TV Production - Technology News - redOrbit

and

Sony, Toshiba to boost overseas LCD outsourcing | Reuters

SONY & TOSHIBA have outsourced their LCD manufacturing to Taiwanese companies. This move is being done to bring down the cost of LCD TVs sold in 'poor' countries like Russia, Brazil, India & China.

What the heck is happening? :annoyed:

There was a time when all the Japanese brand TVs were "Made In Japan". But today even SONY is made in Taiwan! :sad:

I think it's better we stay away from these brands.

 

[adder]

According to the links,

Sony and Toshiba Outsource LCD-TV Production - Technology News - redOrbit

and

Sony, Toshiba to boost overseas LCD outsourcing | Reuters

SONY & TOSHIBA have outsourced their LCD manufacturing to Taiwanese companies. This move is being done to bring down the cost of LCD TVs sold in 'poor' countries like Russia, Brazil, India & China.

What the heck is happening? :annoyed:


There was a time when all the Japanese brand TVs were "Made In Japan". But today even SONY is made in Taiwan! :sad:

I think it's better we stay away from these brands.

Well in todays world of stiff competition,its a norm.

sony infact stopped assembling lcds in japan way back in 08.

Currently the sony lcds sold in india are either assembled in thailand or malaysia.

But if sony really wants to bring prices down they have to go the samsung & lg way to set up a assembly plant in india.this will make their tvs cheaper by around 25% to 28% then their current prices.

Sony or toshiba or ati,nvidia may be made in taiwan but the R&D is still done by them.

So their nothing wrong if its made anywhere as long as the same quality is maintained.
Samsung lcds are made in india,so does that make it inferior to other brands.

 

[royalanalog]

Well, I think assembling in India does make a difference. Way back in 2000 my cousin purchased a SONY (non-WEGA) CRT TV. Its image clarity was cool.
Hearing the news of SONY CRTs' end of manufacture I purchased a 21" WEGA Trinitron TV last year. It's a "Made in Thailand" set. You see, the image on the TV is very blurred though it's sharp. There is some flaw in the way electron beam hits the screen. Also, the brightness is too high that results in a strange glare. I feel my Panasonic TAU gives better picture sometimes! I didn't expect it out of a SONY.
R&D doesn't decide the components to be put inside the TV. It just gives the conceptual design after all and not what parts to be put inside the TV. Outsourcing happens here as well. For example, LG TVs here are not made by LG India - they are made by another company in Noida but under LG's supervision.
I still read online about LG and Samsung TVs failing more than SONY TVs in India. So based on my experience and online opinions, I think electronics manufactured abroad is actually better than locally made counterparts of the same brand.

 

[adder]

Well, I think assembling in India does make a difference. Way back in 2000 my cousin purchased a SONY (non-WEGA) CRT TV. Its image clarity was cool.
Hearing the news of SONY CRTs' end of manufacture I purchased a 21" WEGA Trinitron TV last year. It's a "Made in Thailand" set. You see, the image on the TV is very blurred though it's sharp. There is some flaw in the way electron beam hits the screen. Also, the brightness is too high that results in a strange glare. I feel my Panasonic TAU gives better picture sometimes! I didn't expect it out of a SONY.
R&D doesn't decide the components to be put inside the TV. It just gives the conceptual design after all and not what parts to be put inside the TV. Outsourcing happens here as well. For example, LG TVs here are not made by LG India - they are made by another company in Noida but under LG's supervision.
I still read online about LG and Samsung TVs failing more than SONY TVs in India. So based on my experience and online opinions, I think electronics manufactured abroad is actually better than locally made counterparts of the same brand.

Exactly the same observations i saw on newer wega range vs the older generation wega and hi-black trinitron models.

About samsung & lg failing more it could be true,but it could also be because these tv sell more then the expensive sony,hence you read higher complaints.

 

[royalanalog]

Do you actually mean that SAMSUNG, SONY and LG have the same quality of components used inside them ? Well, I was under the impression that Koreans are mass manufacturers and that SONY uses superior and top-of-the-line electronic components since SONY Trinitrons have lasted for as long as 20 years (and more) !